If the U.S. has no separation of church and state, what is the state religion?

[WelfareQueen]

Maybe you can take a stab at explaining exactly how what you wrote here contradicts my point.

Everything anyone has posted in this thread contradicts your point. Have you noticed that even the people who are arguing that the 1st Amendment prohibits public displays of religion disagree with you about what separation of church and state actually entails?

That is not true at all.

I have seen nothing on this thread that contradicts my point. No one has come close to refuting the logic of it.
This post of yours is evidence. You can't even begin to explain how what you posted contradicts my point.

Because it doesn't.

Case closed!

I don't know what your point is, but I can interpret a simple sentence for you. The U.S. Government is prohibited from starting a State religion. And, you have the right to worship as you see fit. It is not complicated. There is no need to call out the legal eagles.

 

[Kosh]

Notice how the far left only sees one religion (Christianity) as their hatred for Christianity suppresses the religious rights of other religions. Well except for AGW and far leftism.

Folks are afraid of some far right reactionary Christians who wish to use their moral values to interpret the Constitution to their benefit.

Won't happen.

Far left Irony alert!

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

A lot of religious nuts insist there is no separation of church and state in the United States because the constitution doesn't use the exact words "separation of church and state."

If there is no separation of church and state, than that means there must be an official state religion.

I'd like to know what they think it is.

Obviously, barring the establishment of a state religion means the exact same thing as separation of church and state. It's a synonym.

There is no state religion and the Constitution does not say "separation of church and state".

So what are you confused about?

No confusion.

My point is the establishment clause = separation of church and state. It means the same thing in different words.

That was the intent of Thomas Jefferson, you know, the guy who actually wrote the 1st amendment.

 

[Kosh]

A lot of religious nuts insist there is no separation of church and state in the United States because the constitution doesn't use the exact words "separation of church and state."

If there is no separation of church and state, than that means there must be an official state religion.

I'd like to know what they think it is.

Obviously, barring the establishment of a state religion means the exact same thing as separation of church and state. It's a synonym.

There is no state religion and the Constitution does not say "separation of church and state".

So what are you confused about?

No confusion.

My point is the establishment clause = separation of church and state. It means the same thing in different words.

That was the intent of Thomas Jefferson, you know, the guy who actually wrote the 1st amendment.

WOW! Much misinformation in post.

 

[WelfareQueen]

You are not a constitutional scholar, WQ, so of course you don't understand.

Consult the SCOTUS rulings to help you with that.

You may not interfere with others' rights in the performance of your own on tax-supported public grounds.

Jake, you don't have to be a lawyer to read and understand plain English. Their rulings are completely contradictory. They don't know what the fuck they are doing because it is about politics...not the Law. Look it up. There are multiple rulings that directly contradict each other.

Here is just one example of the Courts' arbitrariness regarding this issue. There are dozens of others. The language is clear. That is not the problem. The problem are the judges.


Ex: "On March 2, 2005, the Supreme Court heard arguments for two cases involving religious displays, Van Orden v. Perry and McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky. These were the first cases directly dealing with display of the Ten Commandments the Court had heard since Stone v. Graham (1980). These cases were decided on June 27, 2005. In Van Orden, the Court upheld, by a 5-4 vote, the legality of a Ten Commandments display at the Texas state capitol due to the monument's "secular purpose." In McCreary County, however, the Court ruled 5-4 that displays of the Ten Commandments in several Kentucky county courthouses were illegal because they were not clearly integrated with a secular display, and thus were considered to have a religious purpose."


WTF? So now a display has to have a motive? Show me exactly where the language in the Constitution is that references the intended motive of the display. Fucking ridiculous.

WQ, you have every right to disagree and register your disagreement.

Your wrong because the separation of church and state has been settled by the Constitution and SCOTUS's interpretation of such.

Jake, I just provided direct evidence it is not settled. Please see bolded above where the Supreme Court directly contradicts itself. Also, "separation of church and state" does not exist in law. It was a phrase in a private letter used by Jefferson. It does not exist for review by any court as it is not Law.

 

[WelfareQueen]

A lot of religious nuts insist there is no separation of church and state in the United States because the constitution doesn't use the exact words "separation of church and state."

If there is no separation of church and state, than that means there must be an official state religion.

I'd like to know what they think it is.

Obviously, barring the establishment of a state religion means the exact same thing as separation of church and state. It's a synonym.

There is no state religion and the Constitution does not say "separation of church and state".

So what are you confused about?

No confusion.

My point is the establishment clause = separation of church and state. It means the same thing in different words.

That was the intent of Thomas Jefferson, you know, the guy who actually wrote the 1st amendment.

Oh my God....you are lecturing people about the meaning of the establishment clause and you think Jefferson had anything to do with the Constitution?

Hon, Jefferson was in Paris while the Constitution and Bill of Rights were being written. He had nothing to do with either one. James Madison is the primary author along with Alexander Hamilton. Please read the Federalists Papers so you can begin to understand the genesis of our Constitution. I say this not to be personal....but your complete ignorance is stunning.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jake, you don't have to be a lawyer to read and understand plain English. Their rulings are completely contradictory. They don't know what the fuck they are doing because it is about politics...not the Law. Look it up. There are multiple rulings that directly contradict each other.

Here is just one example of the Courts' arbitrariness regarding this issue. There are dozens of others. The language is clear. That is not the problem. The problem are the judges.


Ex: "On March 2, 2005, the Supreme Court heard arguments for two cases involving religious displays, Van Orden v. Perry and McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky. These were the first cases directly dealing with display of the Ten Commandments the Court had heard since Stone v. Graham (1980). These cases were decided on June 27, 2005. In Van Orden, the Court upheld, by a 5-4 vote, the legality of a Ten Commandments display at the Texas state capitol due to the monument's "secular purpose." In McCreary County, however, the Court ruled 5-4 that displays of the Ten Commandments in several Kentucky county courthouses were illegal because they were not clearly integrated with a secular display, and thus were considered to have a religious purpose."


WTF? So now a display has to have a motive? Show me exactly where the language in the Constitution is that references the intended motive of the display. Fucking ridiculous.

WQ, you have every right to disagree and register your disagreement.

Your wrong because the separation of church and state has been settled by the Constitution and SCOTUS's interpretation of such.

Jake, I just provided direct evidence it is not settled. Please see bolded above where the Supreme Court directly contradicts itself. Also, "separation of church and state" does not exist in law. It was a phrase in a private letter used by Jefferson. It does not exist for review by any court at it is not Law.

No, you gave your opinion why it should not be settled.

That means nothing.

Dislike it? Take it up with SCOTUS.

ps: Jefferson's letter can be used for informational purposes just like the writings of any of the Founders.

 

[WelfareQueen]

WQ, you have every right to disagree and register your disagreement.

Your wrong because the separation of church and state has been settled by the Constitution and SCOTUS's interpretation of such.

Jake, I just provided direct evidence it is not settled. Please see bolded above where the Supreme Court directly contradicts itself. Also, "separation of church and state" does not exist in law. It was a phrase in a private letter used by Jefferson. It does not exist for review by any court at it is not Law.

No, you gave your opinion why it should not be settled.

That means nothing.

Dislike it? Take it up with SCOTUS.

ps: Jefferson's letter can be used for informational purposes just like the writings of any of the Founders.

No I gave you direct evidence in writing. Please review. Also google "establishment clause scotus" which will inform you it is not settled law.

Jefferson's letter is also not Law. Jefferson had nothing to do with drafting or participating in anyway with the Constitution or Bill of Rights. His letter is legally meaningless. Google "Constitutional Convention James Madison."

 

[BillyZane]

A lot of religious nuts insist there is no separation of church and state in the United States because the constitution doesn't use the exact words "separation of church and state."

If there is no separation of church and state, than that means there must be an official state religion.

I'd like to know what they think it is.

Obviously, barring the establishment of a state religion means the exact same thing as separation of church and state. It's a synonym.

There is no state religion and the Constitution does not say "separation of church and state".

So what are you confused about?

No confusion.

My point is the establishment clause = separation of church and state. It means the same thing in different words.

That was the intent of Thomas Jefferson, you know, the guy who actually wrote the 1st amendment.

If you truly believe that Thomas Jefferson's intent was to allow a few people to tell the many that they can't pray on public property , as an example, well then you're just making things up.

Thomas Jefferson himself set IN Congress while THEY prayed ON public property. That should tell ANY reasonable person that Jefferson's intent was NEVER to make it unconstitutional to pray on public property.

I know that hurts your argument , but facts are facts.

Of course I also believe that Jefferson would challenge the notion that the government could force a man to do business with someone they don't want to do business with also, so........

You people seem to confuse the issue. Jefferson never intended for one group to have the power to silence ANY group on ANY topic, including and especially religion.

Personally, I couldn't' care less if people believe in a god, that's their business, but I sure wish people would go back to believing in what's right. Instead of this twisted perversion of what's constitutional we see today.

We have far too many people on the left AND the right who for whatever reason believe the COTUS gives them the authority to tell other people what to do. That was NEVER Jefferson's intent, his focus was telling the government SPECIFICALLY what they could do and all other rights belong to the people.

 

[BillyZane]

There is no state religion and the Constitution does not say "separation of church and state".

So what are you confused about?

No confusion.

My point is the establishment clause = separation of church and state. It means the same thing in different words.

That was the intent of Thomas Jefferson, you know, the guy who actually wrote the 1st amendment.

Oh my God....you are lecturing people about the meaning of the establishment clause and you think Jefferson had anything to do with the Constitution?

Hon, Jefferson was in Paris while the Constitution and Bill of Rights were being written. He had nothing to do with either one. James Madison is the primary author along with Alexander Hamilton. Please read the Federalists Papers so you can begin to understand the genesis of our Constitution. I say this not to be personal....but your complete ignorance is stunning.

That is correct, Jefferson wrote the DoI not the COTUS, but his influence was heavily felt in the latter.

 

[Katzndogz]

A lot of religious nuts insist there is no separation of church and state in the United States because the constitution doesn't use the exact words "separation of church and state."

If there is no separation of church and state, than that means there must be an official state religion.

I'd like to know what they think it is.

Obviously, barring the establishment of a state religion means the exact same thing as separation of church and state. It's a synonym.

There is no state religion and the Constitution does not say "separation of church and state".

So what are you confused about?

No confusion.

My point is the establishment clause = separation of church and state. It means the same thing in different words.

That was the intent of Thomas Jefferson, you know, the guy who actually wrote the 1st amendment.

The intent of Thomas Jefferson was that the government would not impose itself on religious people or religious institutions which is why there is a free exercise clause and an establishment clause.

It was intended that things like this never happen.

Controversy Over 5th-Grader?s Religion Speech « CBS Tampa

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Now it would seem that the far left hatred of Christianity is the sole bases for their stance. It is all about hatred and nothing else."

There is nothing in that to lead one to believe any such thing. However, atheists and agnostics and free thinkers have every right to protect their rights from far right Christians who would invade them.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Notice how the far left only sees one religion (Christianity) as their hatred for Christianity suppresses the religious rights of other religions. Well except for AGW and far leftism.

Folks are afraid of some far right reactionary Christians who wish to use their moral values to interpret the Constitution to their benefit.

Won't happen.

Far left Irony alert!

I am right of center and you are not mainstream, Kosh.

Believe however you wish and I will do the same. However, neither of us can impose our religious beliefs on the other in state-supported activities.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jake, you don't have to be a lawyer to read and understand plain English. Their rulings are completely contradictory. They don't know what the fuck they are doing because it is about politics...not the Law. Look it up. There are multiple rulings that directly contradict each other.

Here is just one example of the Courts' arbitrariness regarding this issue. There are dozens of others. The language is clear. That is not the problem. The problem are the judges.


Ex: "On March 2, 2005, the Supreme Court heard arguments for two cases involving religious displays, Van Orden v. Perry and McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky. These were the first cases directly dealing with display of the Ten Commandments the Court had heard since Stone v. Graham (1980). These cases were decided on June 27, 2005. In Van Orden, the Court upheld, by a 5-4 vote, the legality of a Ten Commandments display at the Texas state capitol due to the monument's "secular purpose." In McCreary County, however, the Court ruled 5-4 that displays of the Ten Commandments in several Kentucky county courthouses were illegal because they were not clearly integrated with a secular display, and thus were considered to have a religious purpose."


WTF? So now a display has to have a motive? Show me exactly where the language in the Constitution is that references the intended motive of the display. Fucking ridiculous.

WQ, you have every right to disagree and register your disagreement.

Your wrong because the separation of church and state has been settled by the Constitution and SCOTUS's interpretation of such.

Jake, I just provided direct evidence it is not settled. Please see bolded above where the Supreme Court directly contradicts itself. Also, "separation of church and state" does not exist in law. It was a phrase in a private letter used by Jefferson. It does not exist for review by any court as it is not Law.

WQ, you provided your assertion with a misconstruction of the interpretation of your evidence.

 

[Kosh]

"Now it would seem that the far left hatred of Christianity is the sole bases for their stance. It is all about hatred and nothing else."

There is nothing in that to lead one to believe any such thing. However, atheists and agnostics and free thinkers have every right to protect their rights from far right Christians who would invade them.

Wrong as usual!

 

[JakeStarkey]

There is no state religion and the Constitution does not say "separation of church and state".

So what are you confused about?

No confusion.

My point is the establishment clause = separation of church and state. It means the same thing in different words.

That was the intent of Thomas Jefferson, you know, the guy who actually wrote the 1st amendment.

The intent of Thomas Jefferson was that the government would not impose itself on religious people or religious institutions which is why there is a free exercise clause and an establishment clause.

It was intended that things like this never happen.

Controversy Over 5th-Grader?s Religion Speech « CBS Tampa

I agree. The student was speaking in an educational context, in which the topic and particulars were most appropriate.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Now it would seem that the far left hatred of Christianity is the sole bases for their stance. It is all about hatred and nothing else."

There is nothing in that to lead one to believe any such thing. However, atheists and agnostics and free thinkers have every right to protect their rights from far right Christians who would invade them.

Wrong as usual!

What, that you are not imposing, if you can, your religious values on others?

 

[Kosh]

Folks are afraid of some far right reactionary Christians who wish to use their moral values to interpret the Constitution to their benefit.

Won't happen.

Far left Irony alert!

I am right of center and you are not mainstream, Kosh.

Believe however you wish and I will do the same. However, neither of us can impose our religious beliefs on the other in state-supported activities.

Hardly you are a far left Obama drone.

And as usual the rest of your post is untrue.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Far left Irony alert!

I am right of center and you are not mainstream, Kosh.

Believe however you wish and I will do the same. However, neither of us can impose our religious beliefs on the other in state-supported activities.

Hardly you are a far left Obama drone. And as usual the rest of your post is untrue.

Ad homming does not help your case, my friend. The social con reactionaries in the TPM are indeed very far right and not representative of mainstream America.

 

[Kosh]

"Now it would seem that the far left hatred of Christianity is the sole bases for their stance. It is all about hatred and nothing else."

There is nothing in that to lead one to believe any such thing. However, atheists and agnostics and free thinkers have every right to protect their rights from far right Christians who would invade them.

Wrong as usual!

What, that you are not imposing, if you can, your religious values on others?

More far left propaganda!